Laurent Giles 'Jolly Boat' Exeter |
29er GBR 074 Tynemouth |
J24 (Sail No. 4239) Dartmouth |
List classes of boat for sale |
Trapezing and Windward Boat |
Post Reply | Page <1 2345> |
Author | ||||
Brass
Really should get out more Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1146 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Topic: Trapezing and Windward Boat Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 6:44am |
|||
Closing speed in Case 107 might have been 3kts + 6kts = 9kts. Not really relevant. Case 107 says that if it's there to be seen and you didn't see it, or see it in time, you are not keeping a good lookout and not doing what is required of you to avoid contact under rule 14, no matter what obstructions, like a assy or being behind your back there are. In practice, as you observed, in the hiking out scenario, it is very unlikely that there will be damage or injury, so L will nearly always be exonerated. I get the sense that in your above post you are maybe feeling around for a rule 14 second sentence get out of gaol. I knew W was there, but because of the angles etc etc, it was never clear to me that W wasn't luffing up to keep clear, so the time for me to act never arose. It doesn't appeal to me. |
||||
Mozzy
Far too distracted from work Joined: 21 Apr 20 Online Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 8:14am | |||
It's an interesting one, not sure who sailed in to the start line gap. But more often than not it is the leeward boat that sails in from astern and close to the windward boat, to then give them maximum space to bear off and accelerate. I wasn't involved in the incident, only had it told to me second hand. The contact happened shortly after the start. I wonder if the windward boat ever had opportunity to get more than a mast length to windward before the leeward boat capsized. I also forgot, I think the windward boat, whose sail was torn, also got DND as damage was caused in the collision. So instead of getting redress they expected, they ended up with a DND and RTD.
|
||||
ohFFsake
Far too distracted from work Joined: 04 Sep 08 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 219 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 9:15am | |||
I guess this swings on whether a capsizing boat is "sailing her course"? Taking it to the next logical step, if a boat unexpectedly capsizes in front of you then you would surely not expect to be penalised for failing to avoid her if you were unable to do so. So in this case could it perhaps be argued that at the point the leeward boat loses control she switches from being ROW boat (rule 11) to becoming an obstruction, which establishes a new obligation on W and with it the defence that she did not have room to avoid? Also seems unlikely that L would drop a mainsheet and capsize without changing course, which again gives W a valid defence? |
||||
sargesail
Really should get out more Joined: 14 Jan 06 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1459 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 9:39am | |||
I disagree that Case 107 is relevant. In that case the boats were always there and closing. On the start line L checks and sees Clear Astern. When they commit to go on the wire CA has become windward. How would you find if L projected on the wire, made contact with the jib of W and was then injured by W’s shroud? |
||||
Mozzy
Far too distracted from work Joined: 21 Apr 20 Online Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 3:26pm | |||
I believe if the windward boat had thought on their redress request they would have put in there that leeward changed course, as it's hard to imagine they didn't during the capsize. It's a story told by some friends who were young at the time. I think both they (windward boat) and leeward boat agreed in the boat park that it wasn't the fault of the windward boat and the leeward boat did spins or retired (admitting fault). I think both boats were good friend and they went along to either a protest hearing or request for redress solely for formalise what they all believed was the correct outcome: that the windward boat would get redress for that race, and the subsequent race they missed. They probably weren't aware of a need for leeward to change course and maybe when asked the question by the PC they just stated that leeward dropped the sheet.
|
||||
Rupert
Really should get out more Joined: 11 Aug 04 Location: Whitefriars sc Online Status: Offline Posts: 8956 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 6:17pm | |||
Reading this thread, is it any wonder that the sailing rules are regarded as opaque by so many people? 4 pages on someone essentially standing up and brushing against another boat. Makes me want to go cruising, almost.
|
||||
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
||||
423zero
Really should get out more Joined: 08 Jan 15 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 3406 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 6:54pm | |||
I always enjoy the rules threads, I even read the book, I know a bit weird (I have a collection of Cricket rules books, from the 1800's to today), think a lot of it can be dropped for club handicap racing.
|
||||
Robert
|
||||
Rupert
Really should get out more Joined: 11 Aug 04 Location: Whitefriars sc Online Status: Offline Posts: 8956 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 8:55pm | |||
Club handicap racing actually makes the rules more complex and harder to deal with, in a way. Suddenly proper course can vary wildly between boats, where in a one design fleet it is likely that two boats going down wind will be sailing roughly the same angles. Same goes for upwind windward/leeward situations, too.
Simplified rules simply make bigger grey areas and bring up more situations that aren't covered. |
||||
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
||||
Brass
Really should get out more Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1146 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 11:02pm | |||
I disagree with your disagreement <g>. Case 107 says very clearly that everybody, including right of way boats must keep a good lookout. I think that What your are arguing about is what constitutes a 'good lookout'. I've previously said that this means 'seeing what's there to be seen'. As you now pose the problem, L has seen W, before the contact, judged that it is possible to hike out without contact, and committed to do so, and then finds that it's not reasonably possible to 'unhike' or bear away in time. You've almost got me convinced. I'm mindful of JimC's wise advice
However, While rule 14, very pointedly, avoids avoids addressing who hit whom, it is sometimes useeful to identify a 'hitter' and a 'hitee'. The picture I've had in mind up to now, is that L's crew extends on trap and in the act of extending, touches W. That is, L moves towards W and contact occurs. In that case, arguably, it is reasonably possible for L to have avoided contact simply by not extending [any further]. An alternative picture is that L's crew is fully or partially extended, and W accelerates or decelerates and by that change in motion, touches L's crew. In that case, I would agree that it was not reasonably possible for L, once her crew had reached that position, to avoid contact. Lastly, if there's any injury or damage, exoneration goes out the window. |
||||
Brass
Really should get out more Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1146 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 11:28pm | |||
I'ts an artifact of the RRS that they only contemplate boats rotating around the yaw axis (changing course). A boat that rotates radically around the roll axis, doesn't get an obligation to give room to keep clear. That's just the way it is. And there is no 'if reasonably possible' in the right of way rules. In the case of a boat capsizing 'under your nose', and you hit it: * it might not be reasonably possible for your to avoid contact, so you do not break rule 14, but * If you hit her before the masthead is in the water, you break rule 12, boat clear astern keep clear, * if you hit here after her masthead is in the water, then 'reasonably possible' kicks in via rule 22. The rules don't look at 'the point where she losses control', which would be endlessly disputable, but at the much clearer point where 'her masthead is in the water'. In either case where boats are on the same tack and overlapped or not, the boat clear ahead, or overlapped to leeward is the right of way boat and is an obstruction, all the time. Edited by Brass - 06 Apr 22 at 2:00am |
||||
Post Reply | Page <1 2345> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |